"KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.06.02.13.37.27.852685@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:13:37 -0400, tar~bal wrote:
>
>>
>> "KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2008.05.29.20.25.47.984241@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 15:23:26 -0400, tar~bal wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:pan.2008.05.29.18.54.32.574227@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:44:13 -0400, tar~bal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ya know, for all your effort, you have yet to produce a reason why
>>>>>> games
>>>>>> shouldn't have ratings. You have argued that it can't be enforced
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> it would want kids to buy them more etc., but not ONE reason why
game
>>>>>> ratings are actually bad.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've said that there shouldn't be additional legislation and
>>>>> regulation
>>>>> placed on retailers. I've said it wouldn't work, and that it would
>>>>> create
>>>>> some demand that was the *opposite* of the intended effect. I've
said
>>>>> that nearly-retarded teenage retail employees shouldn't be suddenly
>>>>> subject to imprisonment or fine because of selling a *game* to the
>>>>> wrong
>>>>> person.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've pointed out that one of the examples you hold as effective -
>>>>> R-rated
>>>>> movies - *isn't* based on the force of law, but on a voluntary
>>>>> standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> And a game that contained content similar to the other examples
you've
>>>>> mentioned - **** mags and X-rated movies - are *already* covered
under
>>>>> the
>>>>> law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, that's the third or fourth time you've ignored all those
points,
>>>>> and
>>>>> insted bleated that I haven't given a reason there shouldn't be
>>>>> ratings
>>>>> (when you're not actually talking about ratings but age
requirements)
>>>>> when I've given *many* reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thinking there's a reason for that...
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the second time you've coyly said that, and the second time I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> know what the **** you mean. If you think I have some hidden
agenda,
>>>>> then
>>>>> out with it.
>>>>
>>>> So you know, you are the one that manipulated the discussion into the
>>>> realm
>>>> of law-based ratings.
>>>
>>> No, I had no idea that's what you were talking about until you
mentioned
>>> punishment or culpability of the retailer.
>>
>> Early in the discussion I clearly stated:
>>
>> Look, I'm not for new laws by any means. In fact, I couldn't care less
>> if
>> it is enforced or not. I think that the ratings are good guides for
>> parents
>> to evaluate what games their kids get. If my son comes home with a
game
>> that is rated way above his age, I can make the decision to make him
>> trade
>> it in or take it from him (and play it after he goes to sleep). But
>> there
>> isn't a rational argument against ratings.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> My contention, for clarification sake, is that merely
>>>> having ratings is of no consequence. Once the ratings are in place,
I
>>>> have
>>>> no problem with certain stores declining sales as a matter of policy.
>>>>
>>>> You made the argument that it takes the place of the parent doing his
>>>> job,
>>>> and I see it as a tool to allow the parent to do his job, similar to
>>>> the
>>>> suggested ages that have been on all toys for decades. If your only
>>>> objection to this is that it would create demand for the games or
cause
>>>> a clerk at Walmart to be put in jail, I say that there is no real
>>>> reason
>>>> to object to the rating system per se.
>>>
>>> I object to the growth of government, particuarly coercive government.
>>>
>>> You see adding to the responsibility and liability of a retailer as no
>>> problem, because you're benefiting from it.
>>
>> Actually, I see putting the onus on the game manufacturer as being the
>> issue.
>
>
> Either you're for a law requiring it, or you're not. Above you say
"Look,
> I'm not for new laws by any means", but in the last line you claim the
> onus should be on manufacturers, which implies a requirement.
>
> Are you advocating government regulation requiring these labels?
Sure, why not?
>
>
>
>
>
>> Then retailers, such as Game Stop and Walmart can institute their
>> own policies. Do you have an objection with that?
>
> An objection to voluntary content labeling? I wouldn't argue against
its
> implementation, but I still don't think it would be effective.
>
>
>
>>>
>>> To dismiss any objection as "no(t) a real reason" because of that
shows
>>> a
>>> real lack of perspective.
>>
>> I think we both may be suffering from that affliction here.
>
>
> No, I didn't dismiss anything you said as "not a real reason".
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't think you have a hidden agenda, I simply don't think you
have
>>>> a
>>>> reason to object to this. The reasons you cite don't amount to
>>>> anything
>>>> of substance.
>>>
>>> To *you*, they don't. I see the extension of the leviathan arm of law
>>> enforcement into ****ing *video games* as horrific, unnecessary, and
>>> unconstitutional.
>>
>> And I suppose you visualize storm troopers busting into stores and
>> people's
>> homes and taking them silently into the night, too...
>
> No. I visualize idiot teenagers getting a criminal record for
> selling a video game. I visualize retailers having to go to the expense
> of training, additional liability insurance, and more lawyers.
>
> Most of all, I see another stupid target of regulation as an invitation
> for a hundred other groups demanding labels on Cheetos, sharp pencils,
> politically incorrect action figures, etc., etc., etc.
>
>
>>>
>>> You also continue to ignore that I've pointed out that movie ratings
are
>>> voluntary, and you say they work. Why is that not good enough for
video
>>> games?
>>
>> I think I made it pretty clear what my opinion of that was.
>
>
> No, you didn't. You implied that you thought movie ratings worked.
> They're voluntary. So, do you therefore think voluntary measures can be
> sufficient (yes or no)?
Yes. As long as all companies are doing it. Are they? I don't know. So
make them do it, what's the big deal?
>
>
>>> And you also continue to ignore that anything graphically ***ual in a
>>> video game would make it subject to the same restrictions as ****.
>>
>> I didn't ignore that at all. In fact, I think that is a minor issue
>> compared to games like GTA. I have kids that play games, and I see the
>> direct correlation between the types of games they play and their
>> subsequent
>> state of mind.
>
> I didn't realize you were Dr. lab~rat, or that you've run clinical
> studies.
>
> And books, PG movies, and playing outside can affect "state of mind" ...
> should we regulate all those things?
Did I say anything about regulating anything? I'm discussing my
particular
kid's reaction to the types of games they play. Another kid may have a
different reaction. One thing I'm sure of, I'm an expert on how my kids
respond to certain types of games. The decision on which games I buy them
could be made easier with ratings.
>
>
>> People that say that video games don't affect the way kids
>> act
>
> Who said that? Not me.
>
>
>> have never paid attention to kids playing games.
>
>
> If it's such a holocaust of danger, why would you let your kid have a
came
> console to begin with?
It's MY game console, goddammit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> I have a huge stack of Playstation games, and for me, it's simple
enough
>> to
>> tell my kids that they can't play games with certain ratings.
>> There have
>> been a few games that were rated younger but I thought that the content
>> caused a problem with the way my son acted after he played them, so
they
>> mysteriously disappeared.
>>
>> So tell me, do you also have a problem with them simply putting ratings
>> on
>> games?
>
> I have a problem with *requiring* them. As far as their voluntary
> existence, I think kids over a certain age (13-14) will always find a
way
> to get what they want, and honest labeling will make the worst games
more
> desirable.
A 13 or 14 year old kid wouldn't be playing a game I wouldn't want them to
play in my house. My kids have computers and tvs in their rooms, but no
game consoles or internet or cable for that matter. The computers need my
authentication to install games. Maybe I go further than most parents,
but
they can do all the great stuff they want (or need) to with my blessing.
|
